Books in the Age of the iPad

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

What are all the ages again?

The Age of Enlightenment
The Age of Reason
The Age of Aquarius
The Age of the iPad

Do I have that right?

Really, is iPad important enough to call it an "age"?

BOb

Maybe the age of the iPad means the end of the age of reason and enlightenment has finally come?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Apple's products look great and have many nice features. But those features that are missing are missing by design, because Apple chooses to leave them out. And don't expect that to change, the current trend is for simplicity over advanced functionality. Love them or leave them, that is the motto for Apple products.

I think that's true about the iPods, the iPhone and the iPad, but it is not true about their computers. At this point, Apple is a unique company, spanning both the hardware and software environments, and selling on the one hand, appliance like mobile digital platforms, and on the other, high quality computers which work as well or better than their competitors.

The only problem with buying Apple products is that their technology advances faster than the equipment wears out. I still have a working 1997 vintage Color Classic, and a desktop I acquired in 2000 that is part of my household wireless network. I'm typing this on a three year old MacBook that will still be working three years from now. And my wife has a five year old Powerbook that is still too much computer for her. It's awfully tough to justify getting a neat new Mac of any kind when the old ones are still perfectly usable. And now the same thing is happening with iPhones. They get better faster than they wear out.

Whatever happened to planned obsolescence now that I need me some?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Whatever happened to planned obsolescence now that I need me some?

Well it is already happening... you can only run Snow Leopard on an intel iMac and there are several of the newer [versions] apps that will only run on intel based machines... Plex being on example.

BOb

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think that's true about the iPods, the iPhone and the iPad, but it is not true about their computers. At this point, Apple is a unique company, spanning both the hardware and software environments, and selling on the one hand, appliance like mobile digital platforms, and on the other, high quality computers which work as well or better than their competitors.

The only problem with buying Apple products is that their technology advances faster than the equipment wears out. I still have a working 1997 vintage Color Classic, and a desktop I acquired in 2000 that is part of my household wireless network. I'm typing this on a three year old MacBook that will still be working three years from now. And my wife has a five year old Powerbook that is still too much computer for her. It's awfully tough to justify getting a neat new Mac of any kind when the old ones are still perfectly usable. And now the same thing is happening with iPhones. They get better faster than they wear out.

Whatever happened to planned obsolescence now that I need me some?

I never had a Mac, but I was thinking about iPhone/iPod/iPad when I made that comment. You could even run Windows on a Mac, so no lock-in there, obviously. Your point about technological advances is, of course, true for all quality brands. I have solved the obsolescence problem by hooking up my old laptops to TVs, so we can use them to watch pictures, internet video, and browse on TV. Or you can always find a worthy family member to give the old ones to.

[Nakor]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You didn't read my entire post. I said it doesn't really fill a need. Everything it can do can be done by other devices, usually even better. It is not aimed at "everybody" but those moderately to well off who can afford to splurge a little. You could never justify buying it if you made a real cost-benefit analysis.

I suppose. I just wonder how many of those are out there in the last couple years.

And I still think they missed an opportunity. There's an incredible number of people saying "I'd buy one if". Alas.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sonist

But the more I find out about the iPad, the more I think it's a dud, like Apple TV. Too many shortcomings, too little that's right, methinks.

There aren't any real shortcomings that I can see. I think the problem is that a lot of people expected a different product. But if you start with the idea that the iPad is for consumers rather than creators, it makes perfect sense.

But v.1 will be like a bad summer blockbuster - great opening, then a rapid drop in sales once the average Joe figures out he can't surf half the web, and he has to pay $300 for the WSJ.

There's more than enough web for the average Joe to be perfectly happy surfing. And he's not going to have to pay 300 for the WSJ. He can get a digital subscription right now for two bucks a week. $104.

What I think is going to happen is that the low end no 3G iPads are going to move fast, and there could be shortages.

I also think that the killer app for the iPad is going to be ... sports television. Right now, I can link my Tivo to my wireless network and play recorded programs anywhere. But my TVs are big, and hard to carry around the house. How long will it be before my Tivo (or my sons' streaming DVRs) can use a wireless network to stream hockey games to an iPad? Damn kids are probably already doing it on their computers. MLB is doing it for 15 bucks on the iPhone.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Well it is already happening... you can only run Snow Leopard on an intel iMac and there are several of the newer [versions] apps that will only run on intel based machines... Plex being on example.

BOb

Yeah, but that's software. There are five computers in my household, not counting the Color Classic. Three run Snow Leopard. One runs Leopard and one runs Tiger. The only reason I have any newer computers is that I got them for my kids when they entered high school, and inherited them from the kids when they went off to college. If I had to make do with the ten year old computer running Tiger, I could do it easily. The old versions of the software are perfectly usable.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Yeah, but that's software. There are five computers in my household, not counting the Color Classic. Three run Snow Leopard. One runs Leopard and one runs Tiger. The only reason I have any newer computers is that I got them for my kids when they entered high school, and inherited them from the kids when they went off to college. If I had to make do with the ten year old computer running Tiger, I could do it easily. The old versions of the software are perfectly usable.

Sorry, just trying to help... I didn't say it was a perfect rationalization.

BOb

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I never had a Mac, but I was thinking about iPhone/iPod/iPad when I made that comment. You could even run Windows on a Mac, so no lock-in there, obviously. Your point about technological advances is, of course, true for all quality brands. I have solved the obsolescence problem by hooking up my old laptops to TVs, so we can use them to watch pictures, internet video, and browse on TV. Or you can always find a worthy family member to give the old ones to.

Turns out I am the old mac worthy family member. Actually, one of my sons has a charity he likes, and has, over the years, scooped up old macs to donate to the charities. My Powerbook 1400, and my Duo, for instance. (Boy, those were sweet little computers. I think that 1400 was right up there with the best for its time.) He's got his eye on my desktop and I expect to come home some day soon & find it gone.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You didn't read my entire post. I said it doesn't really fill a need. Everything it can do can be done by other devices, usually even better. It is not aimed at "everybody" but those moderately to well off who can afford to splurge a little. You could never justify buying it if you made a real cost-benefit analysis.

I think you are right about that. It's a luxury item, but priced, at the lower end, at a point which makes it an affordable luxury for anyone who can afford these electronic toys in the first place.

I'd say it does not fill a need, but it does fill a want. I could certainly get along without one, but I ain'ta gonna.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Sorry, just trying to help... I didn't say it was a perfect rationalization.

BOb

I do appreciate the effort.

I have to say that my wife is very understanding...well, at least, somewhat understanding... about my computers. I can tell she is skeptical about the iPad, but she's been very nice about it. She also tolerates the piles of books all over the place...by my chair...by the bed...in the bathroom...on the windowsills... in the corners...on top of the tables...crammed into all the bookcases...

Now, in the modern digital age, I also have piles of electronic books.

I like to say I have collections of books, and I really do, but mainly, I'm a bookaholic.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Harmon

There aren't any real shortcomings that I can see. I think the problem is that a lot of people expected a different product

No, people just expect a product that works. And the iPad doesn't.

When Apple says that the iPad is the "best way to browse the web. Hands down," Apple is lying. They had to doctor the blue diamonds appearing on the NYT pages, to hide the fact that the iPad can't display the contents.

Then when people noticed, they took the fake pages down. Now different fake NYT pages are back on the Apple site, with all the Flash content Photoshop-ed out.

Originally Posted by Harmon

There's more than enough web for the average Joe to be perfectly happy surfing....

I'd say that the average Joe expects to see ALL of the web, including the same ESPN, the same Hulu and the same Facebook he sees on his desktop, and not what Steve Jobs deems "enough web" for him.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sonist

No, people just expect a product that works. And the iPad doesn't.

When Apple says that the iPad is the "best way to browse the web. Hands down," Apple is lying. They had to doctor the blue diamonds appearing on the NYT pages, to hide the fact that the iPad can't display the contents.

Then when people noticed, they took the fake pages down. Now different fake NYT pages are back on the Apple site, with all the Flash content Photoshop-ed out.




I'd say that the average Joe expects to see ALL of the web, including the same ESPN, the same Hulu and the same Facebook he sees on his desktop, and not what Steve Jobs deems "enough web" for him.

Actually, I think it would be great for all of us, if this blows up in Apple's face. That would mean that he would learn to loosen the strings and others (namely Microsoft who now is trying to out-Apple Steve Jobs with Windows Mobile 7) will rethink going down that same road. Why should we accept others deciding what we can do? Include flash and have it turned off as a standard setting.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Sonist

No, people just expect a product that works. And the iPad doesn't.

When Apple says that the iPad is the "best way to browse the web. Hands down," Apple is lying. They had to doctor the blue diamonds appearing on the NYT pages, to hide the fact that the iPad can't display the contents.

Then when people noticed, they took the fake pages down. Now different fake NYT pages are back on the Apple site, with all the Flash content Photoshop-ed out.




I'd say that the average Joe expects to see ALL of the web, including the same ESPN, the same Hulu and the same Facebook he sees on his desktop, and not what Steve Jobs deems "enough web" for him.

In your opinion, it's lying because you love flash.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Tamara

In your opinion, it's lying because you love flash.

What do anyone's personal feelings have to do with the fact that iPan can't display many pages properly and Apple was trying to hide it? Your reasoning eludes me...